lanceuppercut75
Registered User
Would they start Nabokov in the NHL right away at his age? Not even 0.5 years to 1 year in the AHL?
Friedman: Avalanche are looking at Blackwood and Gibson
- Thread starter Leviathan
- Start date
It's possible he starts in AHL, he will be 22. I think when Vasilevskiy came over at what 20 years old, he didn't get the call up until December. He sure is looking like someone who could immediately step into the NHL with a good training camp and on a team that needs just decent goal tending at the moment.
If they can acquire an upgrade for this and next season would be best I think. Overpaying for someone on a longer contract or in free agency probably isn't optimal.
dirtydanglez
Registered User
- Oct 30, 2022
- 5,443
- 5,501
he would be making the jump from the khl so it's not that far of a stretch. he should have 2 years experience playing against men.
- Sep 27, 2017
- 5,721
- 3,017
Grinner
Registered User
- May 31, 2022
- 1,886
- 1,476
What would be the incentive for the Sharks to make such a trade?
Strangle
Leafs Smol PP
- May 4, 2009
- 9,757
- 6,994
Leafs have 3 starters and 2 good prospects in the goalie position
After 15 years of not having a goalie, they’re finally turning a corner
- Sep 27, 2017
- 5,721
- 3,017
Yeah but why not a make a proposal that makes sense? The question was what would be the Sharks incentive. If you can’t answer that then what’s the point of even making it.
I’d take Georgiev back if a 3rd is attached to it.
Because Gibson as a backup is better then paying that much just for a 2nd and make the Ducks worse in the process.
Just because they are going to miss the playoffs doesn’t mean it is smart to pay almost 10 mil for him to not play for the Ducks, just for a low pick.
It isn’t like the Ducks need the cap space.
Linds
Makalder
- Jun 20, 2016
- 1,403
- 1,345
Nogatco Rd
Pierre-Luc Dubas
- Apr 3, 2021
- 2,976
- 5,574
Is there any player who’s been the subject of trade rumors for longer than Gibson yet still with the same team?
Linds
Makalder
- Jun 20, 2016
- 1,403
- 1,345
Please provide a citation for this claim.
They certainly do not have "cash" issues, as their owner is worth over $17B (per Forbes) which makes him one of the wealthiest sports owners in America/Canada. They also operate the Honda Center which is profitable. There is plenty of cash.
In terms of an "internal cap", that has not been the case for over a decade. When they had good teams (most of the Getlzlaf era), the spent to the cap. More recently, they made aggressive contract offers to Stamkos and Marchessault (reportedly the ducks offered more than they both signed for) after overpaying for Killorn and Gudas. And in any trade of Gibson, they will likely be taking back salary.
Bottom line - the ducks don't need to move Gibson for cash or cap reasons. They certainly might trade him, but there is no reason to give him away, at least in the short run.
John Mandalorian
2022 Avs: The First Dance
- Nov 29, 2018
- 11,681
- 7,404
Yeah. Gibson is only going to increase in value as Dostal’s extremely expensive back up.
DavidBL
Registered User
That's not the point. It's not about increasing his value so much as it doesn't make sense to make the team weaker for a minimal return. How ever you feel about the player he's still better than, or has the potential to be, better than the guys you can replace him with. Otherwise there woulnt be anyone interested in him. Why pay a similar amount, the new backup + the retained salary, for a lesser player and a pick that has a very limited chance of ever becoming an NHL player? How does that make sense to anyone.
John Mandalorian
2022 Avs: The First Dance
- Nov 29, 2018
- 11,681
- 7,404
Right. No Duck’s fan has ever said “not without an overpay” before. It’s page one of a playbook.
IWantSakicAsMyGM
Registered User
If the Ducks retain 50% on Gibson and sign a $1m backup like Reimer, the Ducks would be paying $4.2m per year. Over the rest of this year and each of the next two years, that's roughly $12.6m, which is about 2/3 of what they'd be spending to keep Gibson.
I know they don't need the cap space right now, but I'm pretty sure the ownership group still likes money, and would mind putting an extra $6.4m in their pockets.
On the other hand, when the best selling point for Gibson is that he "has the potential to be" as good or better than other backups who can be signed for $1m, even $3.2m for the next 2+ years seems like a pretty big gamble for any team acquiring him. That's probably why the Avs only asked about Gibson before they made the smarter move and claimed Kahkonen off waivers.
the kid who played in net last night vs nyr looked good
Ducks should move Gibson, get something for him
Ducks should move Gibson, get something for him
DavidBL
Registered User
Is the 1 mill back up as good as Gibson? No if they were the teams rumored to be after him would have done it.
DavidBL
Registered User
"Not without an overpay" and increasing his value are not the same thing. It may feel like semantics to you but Ducks don't need to trade Gibson. The goal for every trade is to make your team better or to manage the cap. The Ducks have the most cap space in the league which kind of leaves you at making the team better. So any trade has to do that in some way. Ducks fans will argue they'd rather have Gibby as a backup than than a second round pick.
- Aug 28, 2009
- 7,670
- 4,709
Possibly. Gibson has put up 900 SP for about 5 seasons now. Is that the team? Is that just him regressing?
Are we just supposed to assume he will play better?
Either way. You’re comparing a 1M backup to a 3.2M backup. How much better does Gibson need to be AT MINIMUM just to make the difference in cap worth it?
